Dem and GOP: Who do you think will win the nominations?

Obama is just so ridiculously underqualified for the job, it's amazing. He has absolutely no business being on stage with Richardson, Biden, Dodd, etc. To think that he's a leader for the dem nomination just boggles the mind.

 

Your logic train makes no sense.

1. you are saying that O's health care plan does not go far enough, and that he should go farther.

2. you are saying that O's health care plan will be demonized by the GOP

Doesn't it stand to reason that if 1 is true, and he makes his health care plan even MORE revolutionary, then the reaction in terms of 2 will be even MORE pronounced? It certainly does to me.

In any event, your argument really collapses when you consider that the alternative to Obama is Hilary. You are saying that O will provoke more negative GOP mud than HIlary, the candidate with the highest negative ratings out there, and 16 years of baggage, and a seemingly terminal inability to take a non-political stand on an issue? Talk about naive.......

Let me also say that there's also other things as important or more important than health care out there. If the price of not having another four years of GOP mismanagement is a scaled down health care plan, it is a compromise I am willing to make.

 

In other words your scared.

 

Scared of a guy with that name, that cocaine snorting past, a muslim background, and no meaningful policy experience?

No, obviously not.

 

the irony continues

inexperienced coke snorter sounds vaguely familiar

 

You are saying I'm supporting Clinton by the way you make this post. I've never said that. I have no idea who I'll vote for in the primary, but right now, it isn't Obama, and not because of this issue. I was asked what Obama positions I strongly disagreed with. I then said I could think of only one, the space program, where I had said that. My other disagreements are on nuances of policy. This is an example, which is why I used it. Krugman compares what Obama is saying about the Clinton, Edwards healthcare plans. You seem fixated on Hillary.

My comment after posting the Krugman column... "At any rate, Krugman raises some very good questions about Obama's stand on universal health care coverage, and to me they are very troubling." I didn't denounce Obama's healthcare plan. It would be a vast improvement over what we have now. However, I agree with Krugman that Obama's plan is flawed and, even worse, that he needlessly gives ammunition to be used against whoever runs as a Democrat for President and runs on universal healthcare. I have attempted to explain my position here. If you don't get it, it's because you are reading what you want to read, and ignoring the rest. With all due respect, Sam.


Impeach Bush.

 

That was awesome.

 

you know deckard I hate to be a jerk but I find this highly ironic because I think you are posting a negative article about obama that you may or may not agree with. not calling you a liar but I just have doubt they you are really that concerned about his health plan. if you don't like obama that's your perogative, but I don't think you actually have a problem with his health care plan.

 

T_J and Bill Clinton agreeing on something. Who wouldda thunk it?





Bill Clinton was already impeached. Keep the impeached out of the White House

 

I am fixated on the two frontrunners. I don't consider that unusual, I mean we are discussing the real world, in which there is an 80% chance or more that that is who is out there in November. You seem to be discussing a parallel universe in which the alternatives are any number of contenders.

If we are going to gouge people for needlessly giving away ammunition to the anti-health care coalition - there is one person in the democratic race who is perhaps more personally responsible than anybody else for the stalled push for national health care. If that is truly a concern of yours, perhaps you should focus your attention elsewhere.

 

So I'm not supposed to post an article that points out differences between the candidates? It is negative, yes, but do you seriously think Krugman would have written it if he wasn't really bothered by Obama's stand on this issue? I've already said there is only one issue where I disagree strongly with Obama. I was asked what bothered me about him and pointed out that one issue was the only instance where I had strong disagreement, but that I had other issues that were troubling, and used this an an example. I had posted it before and it was ignored. I think Krugman has valid points. Everyone is free to disagree, or agree, of course, and think they aren't important, and that's cool. His healthcare stance wouldn't keep me from voting for him. I do think he is setting himself up for some problems in the general, though, and for anyone else who might get the nod. As Sam pointed out, whoever gets it will be hammered, falsely, on universal healthcare, regardless, and that's certainly true. I just wish Obama was being smarter about it. In my opinion, he's still on a learning curve. As I pointed out before, he is still far and away more qualified than Bush when he first ran for President.


Hey, I'm not happy about being unhappy with Obama. I was one of the first to support him here. He's lost my vote in the primary because of his wrong, in my opinion, stance on NASA and the space program. He hasn't lost my vote in the general election at all.


Impeach Bush.

 

My point was that I really don't think you have a problem with the health care plan. Its basso style of posting, I don't like democrats so I will post every article negative about them even though I may or may not care about the issue.

I have no problem with you posting the article, but to go through and just repeat what krugman says as if that was your concern is a little disengenous I believe.

You shouldn't use krugman's concern as yours. I believe you really have concerns about obama, just not on this.

lastly, the concern about his criticism of others rings hollow for two reasons. A) as has been mentioned, they are campaigning. Hillary has been on Obama about his experience. Do you have the same concern that she is criticizing who may be a future candidate?

B) The issue won't be what whoever's healthcare plan, the issue is going to be healthcare plan vs. no healthcare plan in the general election. So this is the time to iron out details

 

There's no way McCain wins the GOP nomination. He's trailing badly in all the polls(isn't he behind even in Arizona?), and he killed his chances with his stupid stance on immigration. I think it'll be Romney or Guiliani.

As for the Dems, it's either Hillary or Obama. I'd love to see Obama get the nod. I'd never vote for him in the general election because he's an ultralib and severely inexperienced, but I'll at least respect the man for finally ending the Clintons' pursuit of a 3rd term in the White House. Still, I think Hillary will pull this out.

 

Good grief! Are you really trying to piss me off??
I'm not on the Obama love train, so now I'm posting like basso? My mistake was attempting to make a "point by point" post. It's not my style, which is why I rarely do it.


(I forgive you, but basso??? )


Impeach Bush.

 

Ultralib is putting it mildly.

 

At least that has a certain logic.
Disagree with the last sentence, however. Overly broad, in my opinion. You give your own good example of why that's true.



Impeach Bush.

 

BACK TO THE QUESTION AT HAND:

In order to win the Democratic Nomination, a candidate must secure a majority of the delegates at the convention. The 45th DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION will have a total of 4,051 delegate votes, with 2,026
(a majority) necessary in order for a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate to be nominated.

While I think the early states are MADE to look important by the media due to their love of a horse race, with 174 total delegates at stake, they are of small importance given the total needed for the nomination. That being said, these early races could spark a candidate that is not polling strongly now to move up if they are seen as someone that can win an election. Given the number of delegates up for grabs, the real big date will be Feb. 5th.

Based on current polling data, here who is in the lead in these states:

Iowa Thursday, January 3 57 Delegates Obama (Close, Clinton, Edwards)

New Hampshire Tuesday, January 8 30 Delegates Clinton (Close, Obama)

Michigan Tuesday, January 15 0 Delegates Clinton
(Michigan's jump to mid-January triggered shifts by Iowa and New Hampshire. The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention because it moved ahead of Feb. 5 without permission.)

Nevada Saturday, January 19 33 Delegates Clinton

South Carolina Saturday, January 26 54 Delegates Clinton (close, Obama)

Florida Tuesday, January 29 0 Delegates Clinton
(In shifting its primary forward, Florida hoped for a bigger role in the nominating process. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of all its delegates to the national convention because it moved ahead of Feb. 5 without permission.)

The following states have their primary on Feb. 5th.

Alabama 60 Clinton
Alaska 18 No data
Arizona 67 Clinton
Arkansas 47 Clinton
California 441 Clinton
Colorado 71 too old
Connecticut 60 Clinton
Delaware 23 Too old
Georgia 103 Too old
Idaho 23 too old, too close to call
Illinois 185 too old
Kansas 41 too old, too close
Massachusetts 121 too old
Minnesota 88 Clinton
Missouri 88 Clinton
New Jersey 127 Clinton
New Mexico 38 too old
New York 281 Clinton
North Dakota 21 no data
Oklahoma 47 too old
Tennessee 85 no data
Utah 29 too old
Democrats Abroad 11 no data

Total Delegates at stake: 2,075

Right now, I think the nomination is Hillary's to lose.

 

Shorter Candidates:

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_12_16_archive.html